Connecticut Residential Ground Source Heat Pump Impact Evaluation - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
connecticut residential ground source heat pump impact
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Connecticut Residential Ground Source Heat Pump Impact Evaluation - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Nov 12, 2023 725 likes •954 views

Connecticut Residential Ground Source Heat Pump Impact Evaluation & Market Assessment September 17, 2014 Presented by Tom Mauldin, NMR Group Shawn Intorcio, DNV GL Glenn Haynes, DNV GL www.nmrgroupinc.com Presentation Overview

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Connecticut Residential Ground Source Heat Pump Impact Evaluation & Market Assessment

September 17, 2014

Presented by Tom Mauldin, NMR Group Shawn Intorcio, DNV GL Glenn Haynes, DNV GL

www.nmrgroupinc.com

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Presentation Overview

  • Program Summary
  • Evaluation Plan
  • Results

– Gross Savings – Net Savings – Program & Market Assessment

  • Recommendations

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Program Summary

  • CEFIA

– Required ENERGY Star Tier 1 GSHP system – 2009-2010: $1,200/ton - $2,000/ton – 2010-2012: $1,050/ton - $1,200/ton

  • CEEF

– New homes meet ENERGY STAR criteria – Existing homes pass HES min. requirements – Verification of Installed Performance report – $500/ton; $1,500 max

  • 326 projects completed as of Jan. 2012

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Typical Incentive Levels

  • Federal tax credit available for 30% of total project cost

4

$5,903 ¡ $1,475 ¡ $14,314 ¡ $19,042 ¡ $6,000 ¡ $1,500 ¡ $13,000 ¡ $20,614 ¡ ¡$-­‑ ¡$5,000 ¡$10,000 ¡$15,000 ¡$20,000 ¡$25,000 CEFIA ¡Rebate (n=99) CEEF ¡Rebate ¡(n=99) Tax ¡Credit ¡(n=49)* Total ¡Incentive (n=100)** Mean Median

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Evaluation Objectives

  • Quantify energy and peak demand

savings of the Connecticut residential GSHP program

  • Quantify improvements in air quality
  • Assess the GSHP program for potential

improvements

  • Assess the market for GSHPs in

Connecticut

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Evaluation Tasks

  • On-site metering at 40 participating homes

– Short-term metering

  • 21 existing & 19 new construction homes (Feb. – Apr. 2012)

– Long-term metering

  • Subset of 10 homes (retrieved Aug/Sept 2012)
  • Assessment of system design

– Manual J sizing – Field and loop sizing

  • Analysis of energy and demand savings using DOE-2 energy

models

  • Estimation of emission reductions
  • Telephone surveys with 100 participating customers (Nov.

2012)

  • In-depth telephone interviews with 10 participating contractors

(Oct. 2012)

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

DOE-2 Modeling

  • Two DOE-2 prototype models

– New Construction – Existing Homes

  • Each prototype had two baselines

– CEFIA baseline

  • Oil hot water boiler plus CAC

– CEEF baseline

  • ENERGY STAR Tier 1 GSHP

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

CEFIA Gross Savings Per Existing Home

8

Metric Electric Savings (kWh) Oil Savings (gallons) Total Energy Savings (MBTU) Annual Savings

  • 6,554

804 90,616 Heating Mode Savings

  • 6,412

804 91,099 Cooling Mode Savings

  • 142
  • 484

Heating Savings/S.F.

  • 2.4

0.3 34.2 Cooling Savings/S.F.

  • 0.05
  • 0.18

Summer Coinc. Dmd. kW 0.66 Winter Coinc. Dmd. kW

  • 2.9
slide-9
SLIDE 9

CEFIA Gross Savings Per New Construction Home

9

Metric Electric Savings (kWh) Oil Savings (gallons) Total Energy Savings (MBTU) Annual Savings

  • 6,539

723 79,270 Heating Mode Savings

  • 5,798

723 81,853 Cooling Mode Savings

  • 741
  • 2,527

Heating Savings/S.F.

  • 1.3

0.16 17.8 Cooling Savings/S.F.

  • 0.16
  • 0.55

Summer Coinc. Dmd. kW 1.13 Winter Coinc. Dmd. kW

  • 2.9
slide-10
SLIDE 10

CEFIA Gross Emission Reductions Per Home

Metric Existing Home (lbs/ yr) New Construction (lbs/yr) Electricity CO2

  • 7,584
  • 7,566

CH4

  • 404
  • 403

NO2

  • 95
  • 94

Residential Fuel Oil CO2 18,223 16,385 Net CO2 Emissions 10,639 8,819

10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

CEEF Gross Savings Per Home

11

Electric Savings Existing Home New Construction Annual kWh 2,206 3,681 Heating Mode kWh 1,641 2,791 Cooling Mode kWh 566 890 Heating kWh/SF 0.62 0.61 Cooling kWh/SF 0.21 0.193 Summer Coinc. Dmd. kW 0.34 0.48 Winter Coinc. Dmd. kW 0.5 0.9

slide-12
SLIDE 12

CEEF Gross Realization Rates

Type of Home Evaluated CEEF Baseline Savings Per Participant (Annual kWh) CL&P Tracking System Savings Per Participant (Annual kWh) Gross CEEF Realization Rate Existing Home 2,206 1,454 1.52 New Construction 3,681 1,044 3.53

12

  • High realization rates primarily due to

longer hours of operation

slide-13
SLIDE 13

NTG Estimation

  • NTG estimated via telephone surveys with participants

– Asked to rate the level of importance on their decision

  • Multiple incentives and differing baselines posed a

challenge

  • Participants most likely to collectively consider the

aggregate impact of all three incentives/credits, rather than the separate impact of each individual incentive

  • The NTG ratios were estimated regarding the overall

decision to install a GSHP system

– Not feasible to ask participants to rate the importance of incentives on specific “portions” of their decision

13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

NTG Ratios

14

Several factors may lead to modest NTG Ratios – Program participants have considerably higher incomes than typical CT residents

– 72% vs. 33% > $100,000 annual income

– Most new homes are financed

slide-15
SLIDE 15

CEEF Net Savings

15

Annual kWh Savings Per Participating Home

slide-16
SLIDE 16

System Sizing & Performance

  • Ground source heat pumps are sized to

meet homes’ largest space conditioning requirements

  • The systems, on average, are slightly
  • versized for heating loads

– Manual J calculations - average heating sizing ratio of 1.21 for newly constructed homes and 1.24 for existing homes

16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

System Sizing & Performance

  • The systems appear to be performing

somewhat below the manufacturer- rated efficiencies

– 85% for existing homes and 91% for newly constructed homes – Primarily due to differences in the operating conditions in the field compared to the manufacturers’ testing facilities

  • The recovery fields for the GSHP loops

appear to be sized correctly

17

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Program Participation

  • Contractors play an important part in disseminating

program information to homeowners

  • Homeowners are highly satisfied

– Average satisfaction ratings of 9.4 out of 10 for the new GSHP systems and 9.1 for the program

  • Contractors are somewhat satisfied

– Contractors rated their overall satisfaction with the program as a 6 out of 10 – Most contractors consider it “a good program” and commended its effective distribution of incentives and the demeanor and diligence of program staff

  • Contractor eligibility requirements are reasonable

– Licensing, accreditation, insurance, and references

18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Program Processes

  • The VIP report yields a mixed response

– Some contractors believe the technical details required are valuable to both perform and verify and it has changed the way they are checking their installations – Other contractors find it to be time consuming and frustrating

  • They believe their VIP reports have been rejected

because program staff thought the systems were too efficient, the formulas in the worksheet were incorrect,

  • r they did not know how to interpret the data if it did

not meet expectations – In some instances, contractors report altering their practices to make systems less efficient in order to meet program requirements

  • Likely refers to the VIP requirement that systems

perform within 15% of AHRI-rated efficiency and capacity levels.

19

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Program Processes…

  • Some contractors believe program staff require more

technical knowledge

– Despite some contractors’ praise for program staff, others are troubled by their perception that program staff appear to have little technical knowledge and training regarding GSHP systems

  • Other contractor complaints include paperwork, CEFIA

fund management, and cross-program coordination

  • The program does not appear to be overlooking any

substantial savings opportunities

– According to 5 contractors, the program is not missing any savings opportunities in program homes – Other contractors believe the rigorous HES efficiency standards and project pre-approval requirements may discourage participants, and the ineligibility of open loop GSHP systems and the lack of a requirement for desuperheaters may result in missed savings

20

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Market Assessment

  • Word of mouth is the most common method of learning about

GSHPs

  • Participants are primarily motivated to install GSHPs due to

energy concerns

– Save energy (36%), reduce energy costs (23%), and help the environment/reduce carbon footprint (21%)

  • More than one-half of participants had concerns about

installing a GSHP, primarily regarding reliability

  • Contractors perceive a large opportunity for residential GSHPs

in Connecticut

– About one-half of existing homes and nearly all newly constructed homes are good candidates for GSHP

  • However, contractors’ expectations vary for Connecticut’s

GSHP market in the coming years

– Some anticipate sales will decrease or flatten given the disappearance

  • f federal tax credits in 2017, while others believe sales will increase

due to growing awareness – Some predict that prices will increase due to improved efficiency, while

  • thers believe prices will remain stable

21

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Recommendations

  • Continue advanced training in GSHP design,

installation, and performance for CEEF and/or CEFIA program staff

  • Consider investigating redesign of the VIP

spreadsheet to allow for more flexibility

  • If the CEFIA incentives return:

– Improve integration to seamlessly offer joint program to both contractors and customers – Reintroduce CEFIA incentives after the federal tax credit expires in 2017 – Consider revising the CEFIA baseline assumptions for natural gas or propane heating system

  • New construction

22